EXPLORING TYPES AND LEV ELS OF MOTIVATION OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) LEARNERS AT AN EDUCATION FACULTY IN ONE OF INDONESIAN PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES - repository perpustakaan
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Definition of Motivation Motivation has been widely accepted as one of the key factors that
influence the success of foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) learning. Although it is a term frequently used in both educational and research contexts, there is little agreement as to the exact meaning of this concept (Dwinalida, 2015:385). The following are some definitions quoted from different researchers.
Motivation refers to the choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid, and the degree of effort they will exert in that respect (Keller (1983) as cited in Crookes & Schmidt, 1985:481). When people make certain choice and use effort to attain it, they are motivated.
From the simple definition, it is developed to be motivation refers to the direction of attentional effort, the proportion of total attentional effort directed to the task (intensity), and the extent to which attentional effort toward the task is maintained over time (persistence) (Kanfer & Ackerman (1989) as cited in Dornyei, 1998:118). Motivation deals with effort, proportion, and the maintenance of the effort.
Furthermore, Dornyei (1998:117) defines motivation as a process whereby certain amount of instigation force arises, initiates action, and
6
7 persists as long as no other force comes into play to weaken it and thereby terminate action or until the planned outcome has been reached.
In addition, there is an attempt to achieve a synthesis of conception of motivation by defining it as a state of cognitive and emotional arousal, which leads to a conscious decision to act, and which gives rise to a period of sustained intellectual and/or physical effort in order to attain a previously set goal (goals) (Williams & Burden (1997) as cited in Dornyei, 2001:46). To make the three s tages of motivation clearer, let’s see the following model of motivation:
Reason for Deciding to do Sustaining the effort doing something Something or persisting Researchers view motivation as the driver of human action for a special purpose. In addition, motivation is thought to be responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity and how hard they are going to pursue it (Dornyei, 2001:47). The psycho-social views that to be motivated means to move to do something (Ryan & Deci, 2000:54). Unlike unmotivated people who have lost impetus and inspiration to act, motivated people are energized and activated to the end of a task.
From reviewing various definitions proposed by different researchers, it is concluded that there has been no general agreement on definitions of motivation. Besides, motivation research is an area of ongoing debate and, therefore, definitions are continuing to mature as more discussion takes place.
8 Although there has been no agreement on definitions of motivation, it can be seen from the review above that most research agree that it concerns the direction and proportion of human behavior. Those are: 1. the choice of a particular action; 2. the effort made towards accomplishing that action; 3. the persistence towards accomplishing the action.
Therefore, this research draws a conclusion that motivation is responsible for: 1. why people decide to learn a language (here in this means English as a foreign language); 2. how hard they are going to pursue this study; 3. how long they are willing to sustain the activity.
The three elements of motivation are interrelated to one another. Motivation starts with the learner’s choice of a particular action. Without a choice in the first place, there will be no motivation at all.
B. Motivation and Foreign Language Learning
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners is described as situations where learners are learning English in order to use it with any other English speakers in the world; when learners may be a tourists or business people (Harmer, 2007:19). Learners often study EFL in their own country, or sometimes on short courses in Britain, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, etc. (Harmer, 2007:19).
9 In addition, a lot of research shows that in foreign language learning, a number of factors can contribute to differences in various learners’ academic performance and attainment, such as age, gender, attitudes, aptitude, motivation, learning approach, language learning strategies and learning style (Dornyei, 1994:274). Among all those contributing factors, motivation has been regarded by researchers working in the field of second/foreign language learning as one of the most vital factors in the process of second/foreign language learning (Dornyei, 2001:275).
Along with ability, motivation is seen as the major source of variation in educational success (Keller (1983) as cited in Dornyei, 2001:45).
Specifically, these researchers also suggest that motivation of a learner can indicate the rate and success of second/foreign language attainment. Hsu (2010:188) also says that learners’ motivation is critical for the effectiveness of learning foreign language. Therefore, motivation is one of the main determinants of successful second/foreign language learning (Dornyei, 1994:273).
Besides, Gardner (1985:146) awards great importance to the subjects’ orientation or integral motivation. His socio-educational model seeks to interrelate four aspects of foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) learning:
1. Cultural beliefs. L2 learning takes place in specific cultural contexts. The subjects’ beliefs as regards the relevance of L2 learning, together with their attitude towards the community of L2 speakers exerts an important influence on those subjects’ identities and on the results they obtain.
2. Individual learner differences. These differences are determined by the degree of: a. Intelligence, which establishes the efficiency and rapidity with which subjects perform tasks in class.
b. Language aptitude, which includes several verbal and cognitive capacities which facilitate learning, such as the capacity for phonetic codification, grammatical sensitivity, memorization of linguistic elements, inductive capacity, verbal intelligence, auditory capacity, etc.
c. Motivation , which involves the subjects’ degree of commitment to
L2 acquisition. It integrates three basic components namely desire to learn, effort towards a goal (L2 learning), greater or lesser satisfaction in learning (affective component).
3. Learning contexts. The activity of obtaining knowledge within particular situation.
a. Formal: when L2 learning takes place in the classroom.
b. Informal: it occurs in more spontaneous and natural situations where there is no formal instruction.
4. Outcomes. The result of teaching and learning process.
a. Linguistic: they refer to linguistic competence: knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.
10
11
b. Non-linguistic competence: this involves the affective component, that is, the subjects’ attitudes and values.
In an educational context, Skehan (1989: 49) distinguishes four main sources of motivation:
1. Learning and teaching activities. Those are related to the learner
’s intrinsic motivation. In this case, the learner ’s interest to learn would generate motivation, due to the types of tasks (s)he is offered, as such tasks can generate a greater or lesser degree of motivation.
2. Learning outcomes
. The learners’ success or failures are the basis of what is termed resultative motivation. Good results act as a reward and reinforce or increase motivation, whereas failure diminishes the learners’ expectations, sense of efficiency, and global motivation. In this sense, motivation is a consequence and not a cause of the learning outcomes.
3. Internal motivation . This dimension is closely related to the first point in
that extrinsic motivation is present in both cases. The difference lies in the origin of that motivation: whereas in the first case it is to be found in attractive tasks, in this instance, the learner already has a certain degree of motivation upon arriving in class, developed due to the influence of other motivating agents (e. g. importance of languages in present-day society, parental influence, etc.).
4. Extrinsic motivation . Finally, Skehan (1989:50) highlights the influence
of external incentives (such as rewards or punishment) on the learners’ behavior.
12 The afore-mentioned four sources of motivation are presented in the following table (Skehan, 1989:50):
Table 2.1. Sources of MotivationLearning contexts Learning outcomes
Outside individuals Materials Rewards - -
(extrinsic motivation) Teaching/learning tasks Success and failure Inside individuals - Success and failure - Goals (intrinsic motivation) throughout the process
In line with this, Crookes and Schmidt (1985:484) hold a perspective which is less centered upon social factors and more focused on the classroom.
The suggested model relates motivation with L2 learning on four levels:
1. Micro level. At this level, the relationship between attention and motivation is especially noteworthy. The former is a necessary condition for L2 learning to take place. In turn, attention is closely tied to interest and to the subject’s disposition, goals, intentions, and expectations.
2. Classroom level. The events which take place in the classroom are likely to increase, maintain, or decrease the learners’ motivation. Classroom tasks, the methodology followed, the type of interaction between teacher and learners, possible anxiety states, and many other factors, all have an important bearing on the learners’ motivation. Crookes and Schmidt (1985:484) also establish a relationship between classroom dynamics and the learners’ needs for “affiliation”. With the generalized use of communicative methodologies, learning is increasingly viewed as a
13 collaborative enterprise, and group work is more frequently employed, thereby satisfying the learners’ needs of socialization. The effects of the learners’ perceptions and their expectations should be placed at this level.
3. Curricular level. With the advent of the communicative approach, it has become essential to explore the learners’ needs as a step prior to curricular planning and implementation.
4. Long-term learning outside the classroom. This level comprises those learning contexts which are outside the classroom. Certain research has revealed that motivated L2 learners seek out opportunities in which to practice the language outside the classroom, such as informal situations with natives or other contexts.
C. Types of Motivation 1. Gardner’s Model
Led by the pioneering work of Canadian social psychologists, research into motivation is shaped by social-psychological perspectives on learner attitudes to target language cultures and people (Gardner & Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:758). Language learning motivation is understood differently from other forms of learning motivation, since language learning entails much more than acquiring a body of knowledge and developing a set of skills. On top of this, the language learner must also be willing to identify with members of another ethnolinguistic group and to take on very subtle aspects of their
14 behavior, including their distinctive style of speech and their language (Gardner & Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:759).
Relate to this, there is a speculation saying that learners’ underlying attitudes to the target language culture and people will have a significant influence on their motivation and thus their success in learning the language. This speculation gives rise to the now classic distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation, the former reflecting a sincere and personal interest in the target language, people, and culture and the latter its practical value and advantages (Gardner & Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:760).
In addition, Crookes and Schmidt (1985:471) state that when learners are driven to learn English because they believe learning it will benefit them in certain, specific ways (meeting other people, getting a job, and social pressure), this is referred to as instrumental motivation because the foreign language (English, in this case) is learned so that it can be used as a tool to improve the lear ners’ lives. Crookes and Schmidt
(1985:471) state that one will be instrumentally motivation to learn a foreign language when they recognize the practical advantages provided by learning the language, for instance, to pass an examination or to advance economically or socially). In one of research in Egypt, it was found that adult EFL learners demonstrated instrumental motivation in that their major goal of learning English was to emigrate to the West (Kassabgy (1976) as cited in Kassing, 2011:12). A better life abroad was
15 not the only factor, however. Good communicative ability in English brings with it possibilities for an improved life in Egypt, a high level of fluency in English implies a high level of education, which therefore determines a person’s social status, affecting the advancement of careers in many fields (Kassabgy (1976) as cited in Kassing, 2011:12).
On the other hand of the spectrum lies what is known as integrative motivation. This type of motivation is driven by an individual’s desire to learn a foreign language because he or she is genuinely interested in the culture of the language. Crookes and Schmidt (1985:474) state that one is integratively motivated if he or she desires to learn a foreign language simply because they find the target language culture, group, or the language itself to be attractive.
In one of research, two French dominant bilingual American graduate learners were interviewed and it was found that they were intensely motivated to learn French. The conclusion was that this motivation was the cause of their high competence levels in the L2 (Lambert (1974) as cited in Gardner, 1985:53). One of the learners was “certain that he did more thinking in French” and only had positive reactions for French-related materials. This learner, he deemed, was dominated by integrative motivation. On the other hand, the other learner was a French teacher at a high school, trying to get a graduate degree in French. She had to learn French for the sake of her career, and therefore, she had instrumental motivation (Lambert (1974) as cited in Gardner,
16 1985:55). In addition, in one of research on learners of Welsh, it was found that their attitudes had significant correlations with their Welsh proficiency levels. (Jones (1966) as cited in Gardner, 1985:57). Furthermore, L earner’s ethnocentric tendencies and his attitudes toward the other group are believed to determine his success in learning the new language (Lambert (1974) as cited in Gardner, 1985:58).
From the explanation above, a question appears then, which is more effective for foreign language learning? Is it an instrumental drive to learn a foreign language as a tool or an integrative drive to learn a foreign language simply because of an attraction to the target language and culture? While these two motivational factors may be seen as being in opposition to each other, this is not always true, as in the case of learners who are motivated by both instrumental and integrative motivation, those who are motivated by neither, and those who have higher motivation in one type than another (Crookes & Schmidt, 1985:475). Although there is a commonly held belief that integrative motivation is stronger than instrumental motivation because instrumental motivation holds that the learner may or may not actually like the language being learned and only learn it for the purposes of advancing in life. Crookes and Schmidt (1985:475) further state that based on several previous research, it is unclear whether integrative motivation causes successful learning or is simply a result.
17 Furthermore, the investigation of the effects of motivation on foreign language learners emphasized that integrative motivation had an important role in language learning success (Shaaban & Ghaith (2000) as
Ma
cited in Kassing, 2011:15). Ma and (2012:840), however, found that in the case of Chinese learners in a Chinese cultural setting, learners were more instrumentally motivated. Ma and Ma (2012:842) attributed this tendency to the fact that Chinese learners learning English did so because of the important international role that English holds, as well as government requirements. In addition, Alrabai (2014:240) found that Saudi EFL learners were also instrumentally motivated rather than integratively motivated.
On the other hand, some research has been conducted regarding the motivation of Indonesian learners. All of these are presented through the lens of the dichotomist viewpoint and present Indonesian learners as being purely instrumentally motivated. This may be true, but Indonesian EFL learners can also be characterized by values and motivations generally associated with a more integrative motivation (Bradford (2007) as cited in Nichols, 2014:16).
Additionally, the pragmatic use of English is highly valued, specifically as it relates to economic gain. The motivations effective for most Indonesian EFL learners involve the ability to communicate in the workplace, the possibility to advance to a higher social position, and the opportunity to pursue higher levels of education (Bradford (2007) as
18 cited in Nichols, 2014:16). In this regard, then, Indonesians fit the model of instrumental motivation for English language learning. Yet, there are also elements of integrative motivation in Indonesian EFL learners as well, though they are mitigated by instrumental concerns. Indonesians do report using English language media, but they do not identify the desire to participate in media as a goal for learning English as foreign language.
Furthermore, Indonesians do express a desire to befriend native English speakers, but they do not desire to integrate. For example, they are not motivated to mimic native speaker pronunciation or nonverbal communication techniques. Any attempts to integrate seem to be focused as means to an end for social or economic advancement and are therefore more instrumental in nature than integrative (Bradford (2007) as cited in Nichols, 2014:16).
In line with this, two research conducted in Indonesia, for instance, revealed that the participants’ motivation in studying English as a foreign language in two Indonesian high schools were more integrative than instrumental (Lamb (2004); Liando et al., (2005) as cited in Astuti, 2013:17). This could indicate that the primary reason for studying English in these research contexts was to be able to have opportunities in a conversation with English speaking people, rather than pragmatic goals like in assisting in the pursuit of a career (Liando et al., (2005) as cited in Astuti, 2013:17).
19 There is a common belief that integrative motivation is stronger than instrumental motivation as learners who are instrumentally motivated may not actually like the target language being learned; yet the superiority of integrative motivation over the instrumental is debatable, as research results have varied in different research contexts (Crookes & Schmidt, 1985:486).
2. Deci’s Model
With the move towards more education-friendly and classroom- based approaches to the research of motivation, research attention since the 1990s has increasingly turned to cognitive theories of learner motivation, thus bringing language learner motivation research more in line with the cognitive revolution in mainstream motivational psychology. Cognitive theories focus on the patterns of thinking that shape motivated engagement in learning. These patterns of thinking include, for example, goal setting, mastery versus performance goal- orientation, self-perceptions of competence, self-efficacy beliefs, perceived locus of control, and causal attributions for success or failure (Dornyei, 1994:276). From a pedagogical perspective, a key message emanating from research on cognitive theories of motivation in education and in language learning is the vital importance of learners having their own motivation “from within” (Ryan & Deci, 2000:54). The optimal kind of motivation “from within” is identified as intrinsic motivation, that is, doing something as an end in itself, for its own self-sustaining
20 pleasurable rewards of enjoyment, interest, challenge, or skill and knowledge development. Conversely, extrinsic motivation, that is, doing something as a mean to some separable outcomes, such as gaining a qualification, getting a job, pleasing the teacher, or avoiding punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000:55).
Relate to this, there is a considerable body of research evidence to suggest that intrinsic motivation not only promotes spontaneous learning behavior and has a powerful self-sustaining dynamic but also leads to a qualitatively different and more effective kind of learning than extrinsic forms of motivation. This may be because the rewards of learning are inherent in the learning process itself, in the shape of feelings of personal satisfaction and enhanced personal competence and skill deriving from and sustaining engagement in learning (Ushioda (2007) as cited in Griffiths, 2008:22). Thus, intrinsically motivated learning is not simply “learning for the sake of learning” (though many teachers would undoubtedly value such learner behavior in itself); nor it is simply learning for fun and enjoyment (though many teachers and learners, especially within primary and secondary school contexts, might regard “motivating” as synonymous with “fun” as opposed to “boring”). Rather, intrinsically motivated learners are deeply concerned to learn things well, in a manner that is intrinsically satisfying and that arouses a sense of optimal challenge appropriate to their current level of skill and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000:58). Compared to their extrinsically
21 motivated counterparts, research suggests that such learners are likely to display much higher levels of involvement in learning, engage in more efficient and creative thinking processes, use a wider range of problem- solving strategies, and interact with and retain material more effectively (Ushioda (2007) as cited in Griffiths, 2008:21).
Furthermore, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation lie on a continuum from self-determinedness to non-self- determinedness.
Amotivation means there’s no motivation at all or no impetus to make movement, where demotivation is a condition when a learner has got motivation but because of some factors, it decreases (Ryan & Deci, 2000:55).
Regarding the first ‘category’ of motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000:57) point out that three innate needs that foster intrinsic motivation can be distinguished: a. Competence involves understanding how to attain various external and internal outcomes and being efficacious in performing the requisite actions.
b. Relatedness involves developing secure and satisfying connections with others in one’s social milieu.
c. Autonomy refers to being self-initiating and self- regulating of one’s own actions’ (italics mine).
The second aspect, extrinsic motivation, is divided into four types. Accord ing to the degree in which the “other-regulation” can
22 become “self-regulation”, Ryan and Deci (2000:61) make a distinction between the following types of regulation:
a. External regulation is the least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. An example provided by Ryan and Deci (2000:61) concerns the wish for praise. In this sense, the behavior is initiated by another person, most probably the teacher in a classroom context, and is highly-reward or punishment-driven.
b. Introjected regulation involves internalized rules or demands that pressure one to behave and are buttressed with threatened sanctions (e.g. guilt) or promised rewards (e.g. self-aggrandizement) (Ryan & Deci, 2000:62). The most important difference between this type and the former one is that no physically present authority is required here. Although this form of extrinsic motivation consequently finds itself in the learner, it does certainly not stem from his innate needs.
The example provided by Ryan and Deci (2000:62) concerns a learner who does not want to be late for class, in order to avoid feeling guilty.
c. Identified regulation finds itself on the verge of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. If the learner identifies with a certain activity, and hence has come to value it, his behavior is in keeping with his own convictions.
d. Integrated regulation refers to activities that have become fully self- determined. The nuanced distinction Ryan and Deci (2000:63) make
23 between integrated motivation and intrinsic motivation entails that the former concerns activities that lead to highly valued results, whereas the latter involves activities that are valuable and interesting in themselves. Since the presence of an intrinsic interest nevertheless seems inevitable to execute the former activities, this integrated regulation clearly is the last step in Ryan and
Deci’s (2000:64) so- called “organismic integration process” and can easily be linked to the previously mentioned concept of intrinsic motivation.
Next to these concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000:61) mention that an overload of externally controlled actions, which do not align with the learner’s intrinsic motivation at all, only leads to amotivation. All these notions can be presented as the following figure : Figure 2.1. Motivation/Self-Determination Continuum.
This representation of a continuum from external to internal motivation proves very truthful, in that both aspects must work in concert
24 to stimulate learning, rather than oppose one another (Ryan & Deci, 2000:61). Hence, externally controlled actions can only be beneficial if they gradually fall in step with intrinsically motivated actions, so that other-regulation can become self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000:62). As a consequence, an important task for teachers is to stimulate their learners
’ intrinsic motivation, so as to get the most out of their interests and curiosity. Ryan and Deci (2000:63) po int out, “not doing so is like sailing into the wind”.
As can be derived from the notion of external regulation, a great pitfall in this context is the use of “surrogate motivators”, which severely undermine intrinsic motivation. When you reward learners for their behavior, you tend to reduce learners
’ interest in performing those behaviors for their own sake (Ryan & Deci, 2000:63).
3. Dornyei’s Model
Among other models which attempt to explain motivation in an educational context, Dornyei (1994:280) is worthy of mention. In this model, the components of motivation are organized in three levels which are somehow related to L2 learning processes (Dornyei, 1994:280): a. Language Level. The most general level of the construct is the language level where the focus is on orientations and motives related to various aspects of the L2, such as the culture it conveys, the community in which it is spoken, and the potential usefulness of proficiency in it. These general motives determine basic learning goals and explain language choice. In accordance with the Gardnerian approach, this general motivational dimension can be described by two broad motivational subsystems: 1) The subsystem of integrative motivation is centered around the individual's L2-related affective predispositions, including social, cultural, and ethnolinguistic components, as well as a general interest in foreignness and foreign languages.
2) The subsystem of instrumental motivation consists of well- internalized extrinsic motives (identified and integrated regulation) centered around the individual's future career endeavors.
b. Learner Level. It involves a complex of affects and cognitions that form fairly stable personality traits. Two motivational components underlying the motivational processes at this level can be identified namely need achievement and self-confidence and security (anxiety, self-esteem, causal attributions, self-efficacy, etc.).
c. Learning Situation Level . It’s made up of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and motivational conditions concerning three areas:
1) Course-specific motivational components are related to the syllabus, the teaching materials, the teaching method, and the learning tasks. These are best described by the framework of four motivational conditions proposed by Crookes and Schmidt (1985:490): interest, relevance, expectancy, and satisfaction.
25
26 2) Teacher-specific motivational components include the affiliative drive to please the teacher, authority type, and direct socialization of learner’s motivation (modelling, task presentation, and feedback).
3) Group-specific motivational components are made up of four main components: goal-orientation, norm and reward system, group cohesion, and classroom goal structure. All these notions can be presented as the following figure:
Figure 2.2. Components of Foreign Language Learning Motivation27
D. Levels of Motivation
Highly motivated individual enjoys striving for a goal and makes use of strategies in reaching that goal (Gardner (2001) as cited in Cheng & Dornyei, 2007:154). Motivation to learn a foreign language is often triggered when the language is seen as valuable to the learner in view of the amount of effort that will be required to be put into learning it. With the proper level of motivation, language learners may become active investigators of the nature of the language they are studying.
Similarly, a substantial amount of research has shown that motivation is crucial for second/foreign language learning because it directly influences how much effort learners make, their level of general proficiency and how long they persevere and maintain foreign language skills after completing their language study (Cheng & Dornyei, 2007:155).
Furthermore, cognitive skills in the target language do not guarantee that a learner can successfully master a foreign language. In fact, in many cases, learners with greater second/foreign language learning motivation receive better grades and achieve better proficiency in the target language (Brown, 2000:73). No matter how appropriate and effective the curriculum is, and no matter how high aptitude or intelligence an individual has, without sufficient motivation, even individuals with outstanding academic abilities are unlikely to be successful in accomplishing long-term goals (Brown, 2000:75).
In addition, high levels of motivation can make up for considerable deficiencies both in learners’ language aptitude and learning context
28 (Dornyei, 2001:51). Likewise, motivated learners can master their target language regardless of their aptitude or other cognitive characteristics, whereas without motivation, even the most intelligent learner can fail to learn the language.
In an EFL setting, for example, in a country like Indonesia, English is a compulsory subject, so learners definitely have no choice but take the course. Without effort, persistence will make little sense and motivation will be greatly weakened. Furthermore, without persistence, motivation will be terminated and can no longer make any contribution to learning outcomes. Therefore, both effort and persistence are meaningful elements of motivation and should receive as much attention as reasons for action. In the particular setting mentioned above, effort and persistence play a more important role.
In the context of Indonesian learners, having the characteristics of low motivation is often included (Astuti, 2013:15). One of the causes is the large classroom size (Bradford (2007) as cited in Astuti, 2013:15). This is supported by Lamb (2007:770) who found that Indonesian high school learners are initially motivated to learn but their experience of learning English at school decreases their motivation over time. In general, Indonesian learners, like other Southeast Asian learners, tend to be passive and nonverbal in class. Indonesian learners rarely initiate class discussions until they are called on. This is because of the nature of the course content, teaching methods and assessment (Bradford (2007) as cited in Astuti, 2013:16). They do not want to show off what they know and they do not want to lose face in
29 case their answers are incorrect. Moreover, relating English to the daily life of Indonesian learners becomes another problem in increasing their motivation in learning the language. It is due to the fact that English is a foreign language not a second language in Indonesia (Liando, et al., (2005) as cited in Astuti, 2013:17). The learners do not have life experience using English and they are not expected to be able to speak English in their future careers. The learners use the Lingua Franca, Bahasa Indonesia, most of the time, at school and sometimes at home. Clearly, the social and cultural environments do not provide strong support for learning English (Astuti, 2013:18).
On the contrary, some research has been conducted to find out the learners ’ motivation in learning language. One of the researchers is Martin
Lamb (2004:12) who conducted a series of research by looking at 11-12 years old children’s English learning motivation in the Indonesian context. They are junior high school learners and most of them start learning English for the first time. In elementary school, English is not a compulsory subject. Lamb used open and closed questionnaire items followed by class observation and interviews. His findings indica ted that learners’ motivation both integrative and instrumental in relation to learning English as a global language is moderate.
E. Basic Assumption
Motivation is one of key factors of success in learning English as foreign language. Figuring out types and levels of motivation of learners can aid the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education,
30 educational stakeholders of university, and lecturers or educators of English to gain better understanding on how to design curricula, syllabuses and pedagogical practices to stimulate and maintain learners’ motivation through an understanding of the types and levels of motivation of learners in university in Indonesia.